Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA
- Thread starter Bonchie
- Start date
Lindberg
Final Approach
Did he retract all the lies from his previous videos?
I haven't seen previous interviews with the attorney, so I don't know.
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,506
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
Good thing FAA inspectors can’t just do whatever the **** they want because there is an 8900.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Loving the vibes of that attorney roasting admin law. He makes a really sweet argument of all the ways FAA/NTSB kango court is effed up like a football bat. I think/hope he'll have more traction now that it's going to big boy, real appellate court.
I have no love lost for flat billed STOLbros like Trentie boy, but enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm rooting for this guy (the lawyer). Ridiculous amount of billable hours on this joke of a case, but glad someone has the wallet to push back on these dirty redcoats. Here's a preview of opening arguments....
I have no love lost for flat billed STOLbros like Trentie boy, but enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm rooting for this guy (the lawyer). Ridiculous amount of billable hours on this joke of a case, but glad someone has the wallet to push back on these dirty redcoats. Here's a preview of opening arguments....
ateamer
Pattern Altitude
Admin law judges are BS. They are effectively employees of the prosecuting agency. Contesting adverse action by the government should only be tried in real courts.
It went to,”big boy appellate court.” Oral argument was about two weeks ago.
I listened live. Based on what I heard, the panel didn’t seem interested. Not even about what I thought was the best - the procedural one Schulte opened with. I was aware of it from discussions with one of the AOPA counsel (AOPA filed an amicus brief). It’s a good one, should have been addressed, and I was expecting some pointed questions (the sign of interest) on the topic to counsel for both sides. But nothing.
The only question from the judges was on a subject that had nothing to do with the case. I wondered why they even bothered to grant oral argument. It will be interesting to see the decision.
...with juries.
I'm not any fan of the adminstrative procedures used by the FAA, but I think the AOPA amici is full of manure on the interpretation point. Burkhart isn't applicable. The APA requires the administrative and even district courts to defer to the agency for the interpretation of their own ill-crafted regulations. The case they cite (Burkhart v. WMATA) isn't applicable since that involves "real law" not regulations. In their argument about the sanctions, they again invent concepts that aren't present in the law. Just because that argue congress intended the NTSB to be a more lenient review, doesn't make it so in light of the actual enacted laws.
The strategy of trotting out Pham is bizarre. Essentially, that precedent goes against them and Yodice tosses it in and says they should change the decision on that one as well.
I don't think Palmer's got a chance in hell on appeal.
For those who want to hear the oral arguments:
Starts just before minute 29 on the video.
The strategy of trotting out Pham is bizarre. Essentially, that precedent goes against them and Yodice tosses it in and says they should change the decision on that one as well.
I don't think Palmer's got a chance in hell on appeal.
For those who want to hear the oral arguments:
Maybe if SCOTUS tosses the Chevron doctrine they can get a re-opener. This might hinge on fish.....
Might or might not help. “Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law. Most of the questions in this case are legal, not factual. The basic facts - Palmer, in making an inspection pass, passed within x feet of a house, structures, and people on an adjoining property - are not really in dispute.
It’s the second case. If someone wants to see what I meant by “not interested,” listen to the first one for comparison.
In teaching first year law school students to prepare for their first oral arguments, they are often told, “when the judges start interrupting you with questions, rejoice.”
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.
Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
Everyone, including the FAA, agrees that this is legal. All practice approaches are exceptions to 91.119 as long as they are practice approaches to a landing spot that is reasonable under the circumstances and the approach and departure procedures themselves are reasonable.
There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach. Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.
In a civil case, the judge can make a judgment as a matter of law- essentially finding that no reasonable jury would decide otherwise. This can happen even after the jury has made a verdict.
Juries are only an ultimate check in criminal cases, since an acquittal by jury can not be set aside, except probably in the case of a bribed jury or something.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Many years ago I attended an event where an FAA official spoke about the Bob Hoover affair and how the FAA had learned its lesson and was now a kinder and gentler safety partner with General Aviation. After her prepared dissertation, she then opened the floor to questions and quickly reverted to the stereotypical sky cop whose job was to prosecute every infraction actual or perceived. It was truly amazing how fast she disabused us of the notion that the FAA had changed its attitude toward pilots as a result of the Bob Hoover affair. In the intervening years I've come across a wide range of FAA officials, some pretty good guys and some not so. I treat all interactions with them cautiously as you never know which kind you're dealinng with.
I suspect you are right, but is there any actual evidence of that?
Lindberg
Final Approach
Yes. The NTSB order on his appeal of the ALJ's ruling is linked in this thread.
There is nothing in the case or precedent that says that, only a chamber of horrors argument.
So you think a jury would be fine with one of those dangerous little airplanes flying through a residential backyard. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Jury nullification definitely exists, but it’s exceedingly rare and I doubt they’d do in on a case like this.
Last edited:
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,679
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
Brad Z
Final Approach
The cynic in me says it makes good YouTube content and clicks=cash.
i won’t speculate on either Palmer or his lawyer’s (who is well-respected in the aviation legal community) motivations. As much of the discussion shows, although I’m cynical about it, some really do see the case as about protecting inspection passes, practice approaches, etc. And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.
Last edited:
Yes. That's more important to me than the baloney of the case itself.
Lindberg
Final Approach
It wasn't even six months. The FAA wanted 120 days, which the ALJ reduced to 60. If YouTuber had taken the L, rather than appealing, it wouldn't have been increased back to 120 days.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Unbelievable! Except it's the FAA so it's totally believable.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I could give you a name and more, but I doubt he wants that done... I taught his son and my CFI signature is in his logbook.
Not needed. Have no doubt the FAA is full of Barney Fife types.
Speaking as a layman, Palmer's lawyer sounds respectable and sincere to me.
As Trent Palmer's lawyer said, it's the "because I said so" standard.
cops on the beat overreaching their authority is a historical truth, although I suspect there is much more to the story. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.
The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.
Ah, and I see Ryan posted up an incident. So what were you all saying again?
Lindberg
Final Approach
You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.
I didn’t realize you flew instrument approaches at low altitude through people’s backyards into a place that’s not an airport.
Nor the body of legal precedent, interpretation, and official guidance on the issue. Never confuse a political position with reality. It only confuses people.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I don't recall seeing backyards listed in in 91.119. I have, however flown over "any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft" and "closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" while not landing and flying approaches.
Funny that a guy who put together a logging chart based largely on interpretation rejects legal and interpretive precedent regarding “necessary for takeoff and landing” as not directly stated in the regulations. I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.